Of course, this pearl is not miss Universe, but high scarcity value, that's enough to be appreciated by inquisitive minds, collectors too.
Anyway, this piece makes us to wonder how nature can produce such objects. If I had found it myself, I would not think it's really a pearl, without an expert advise. Question stays to know what freshwater mollusc has made that.
Edit: that to comment a other post... deleted now.

yup first thing i asked the owner was how can it be sold as a natural pearl when its a blister, but because cibjo states it as a natural blister pearl and not a natural blister it can be called a pearl (wonder if the buyer has been reading the whole catalogue the ssef rapport was added to it )

I think without the history the piece would be worth more in the 10k range then what it did now. actually did not expect them to sell it.

they did a good job in hyping the pearl the one thing that kinda annoyed me tho is that some years back they where selling the pearl for 600k under a different name: pearl maxima in a lapis and gold stand. so when i asked about this the auction house was like no its for sale for the first time in 40 years and when i told them it has been for sale during the pan art show think 2010 or somewhere there they acted like i was saying something weird.

The auction house seems to be very open about the whole blister/blister pearl point and provides details about both reports/studies made on this piece by The Netherlands Lab and SSEF. That they don't agree is reflective of the opinions out in the trade on such objects. It is not clear and either of them could be right but even if The Netherlands lab is I guess the trade is going to believe the SSEF's take on it?

Wonder what the difference in price is between a blister and blister pearl with such a story behind it? Good thing it had such a provenance! If it didn't there probably would be a huge difference.